In reply to @nep_nep:matrix.bottomservices.club

where they're heavily anti-authority

that is an artificial problem
i sure do wonder why someone that suffers abuses of authority so much would be anti-authority /s

also it's quite funny that you specifically mentioned teens rather than children, since at that point even neuropsychological development can't be blamed, it's even more artificial
to quote David Moshman's (Professor emeritus of Educational Psychology at UNL) Adolescent Rationality and Development:

Adolescents are qualitatively and categorically distinct from children. There is no empirical support, however, for a state of rationality or maturity common to most adults, rarely seen in adolescents. Even young adolescents often show forms and levels of rationality beyond the competence of many adults, and adults of all ages often fall short of rational standards met by many adolescents [...] it is not surprising to find that in most societies for most of human history there was no such thing as adolescence, at least as we understand it (Epstein, 2007; Grotevant, 1998; Hine, 1999).

Developmental changes beyond age 12 to 14 are much too stable and individualized, it appears to me, for a developmental panel, even if it included brain experts, to succeed in distinguishing age groups on the basis of their age development. Second, there is the reductionist fallacy. Brain data seem more scientific than behavioral data, but they are not, nor do they provide us with ultimate explanations, even if psychology can in principle be reduced to biology, a dubious proposition, we are a very long way from achieving such a reduction.

anthropological research from freer societies also showcases the artificial nature of a lot of the immaturity seen today

The majority of the children demonstrated a high degree of maturity, self-confidence, and self-reliance. With the exception of four children, three of whom had had contradictory and nonsupportive parental situations, physical clinging, crying and whining, and attention-getting behavior were rare. Early psychological maturation seemed the rule. The two older children observed were accepting nearly adult roles in their groups by the ages of 13 or 14.

Nep Nep I see that you know your subject, but I would be very surprised if all the scientists on the subject would agree that it is a simple binary matter: freedom or no freedom.

Parenthood is about guiding your children until they are mature enough to take their own decisions. It is normal for a parent to hide objects or at least put them on higher shelves because it's dangerous for the young ones (I'm thinking about alcohol, but it's also true for guns in the USA).

Ultimate freedom, i.e. freedom without any contraint, is definitely not a sustainable goal. As a society, as a social species, individual freedom is constrained by the others' freedom. Some contraints are mandatory and useful.

It's all about balance. Too many constraints or not at all is not the answer. And it's the same for children, forcing them to watch the Teletubbies all the time because "it's harmless" is not the way to go, but letting them drink alcohol as much as they want is also not the way to go. And it's progressive... you definitely don't give whisky to a 1 year-old. But I think it's ok to have a taste at 17 (just a sip, to discover different tastes).

young people aren't as inherently immature as they are thought to be by the average person

I'd say on average the average person is about right. There may not be much in terms of brain development stopping 16yo from being a responsible person, but at that point they likely lack experience to make the right choices in life. And taking all limitations away may make them mature faster, yes – if they survive for that long. A child won't have enough foresight to not do something that's harmful for them but in a few years, thanks to their assorted life experience, they will likely now better.

You don't allow 16 years olds to take go to a casino with limitess vodka supply, and you hope that by the time they're legally allowed to do this, they'll know not to

Driver fatality risk by age and county can be entered into a standard multiple regression weighing poverty rate, miles driven per year, median income by county, vehicle age, urbanization, vehicle registrations, unlicensed driver fatalities, and other relevant variables to produce fatality estimates controlled for poverty. Even for the worst adolescent risk, traffic crashes, it appears that poverty and its correlates, not young age, are the most important outcome predictors (Males, 2007b). Fatality data show that teens in fatal crashes were driving vehicles that were smaller (three fourths were in small cars, versus half of adults aged from 45 and 64 years), older (9.4 years old, versus 8.2 for adults), and more crowded (2.6 vehicle occupants, versus 2.1 for adults) (FARS, 2008). Residence in lower income areas very likely also entails less-maintained roads, slower police response, and lower levels of emergency and medical services.
This exercise can be repeated for virtually every behavior for which adolescents are accused of displaying excessive risks with similar results:
Socioeconomic status predicts risk outcome more consistently than age. When poverty rates are held constant for California’s major counties, adolescents and emerging adults even at the riskiest ages generally are less prone to risk taking than are middle-aged adults, with adults aged from 25 and 39 years, in between.